Standing Committee E

[Mr. Peter Atkinson in the Chair]

Communications Bill

Peter Atkinson: Order. I shall suspend the Committee for a few minutes, so that the usual channels may confer.
 Sitting suspended. 
 On resuming— 
 Ordered, 
That the Order of the Committee of 10th December be amended as follows— 
 (a) in the Table, in respect of the third sitting, in the third column, the words '11.25 am' be omitted; 
 (b) in the Table, in respect of the fourth sitting, the words in the second column be omitted and the following words be inserted— 
 'Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clauses 3 to 26, Schedule 2 and Clause 27 (so far as not previously concluded)'; 
 (c) in the Table, in respect of the fourth sitting, in the third column, the words '5.00 pm' be inserted.—[Dr. Howells.]

Clause 3 - General duties of OFCOM

John Greenway: I beg to move amendment No. 138, in
clause 3, page 3, line 43, at end insert 'for equal or equivalent access to all forms of regulated communication'.

Peter Atkinson: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment No. 154, in
clause 3, page 4, line 3, at end insert— 
 '(n) the desirability of promoting apparatus and services which are accessible to, and usable by, as many people as reasonably possible and to the greatest extent possible without the need for special adaptation or specialised design.'.
 Amendment No. 139, in 
clause 3, page 4, line 5, after 'consumers', insert ', including disabled, elderly and low income consumers,'.
 Amendment No. 155, in 
clause 3, page 4, line 6, after 'service', insert 'access'.
 Amendment No. 158, in 
clause 10, page 10, line 34, leave out second 'and'.
 Amendment No. 140, in 
clause 10, page 10, line 37, at end insert— 
 '(f) To promote awareness and understanding of the issues in paragraphs (a) to (e) above among people whose disabilities, age or personal circumstances might otherwise impede their access to information.'.
 Amendment No. 159, in 
clause 10, page 10, line 37, at end insert 'and 
 (f) to bring about, or to encourage others to bring about, a better public understanding of the educational and literacy benefits of electronic media services for those with disabilities including subtitling for persons who are deaf or hard of 
hearing and audio-description for persons who are blind or partially-sighted.'.
 Amendment No. 141, in 
clause 12, page 13, line 6, at end insert— 
 '(6A) In particular, OFCOM shall give consideration to the advisability of authorising the Content Board to establish a committee or panel to advise on the interests of people with disabilities or special needs resulting from age or personal circumstances.'.
 Amendment No. 156, in 
clause 13, page 13, line 25, at end insert 'with particular regard for variations in consumer experiences as a result of disability, age or personal circumstances.'.
 Amendment No. 142, in 
clause 13, page 13, line 36, at end insert— 
 '(g) the extent and nature of variations in consumer experiences as a result of disability, age or personal circumstances.'. 
Amendment No. 143, in 
clause 17, page 18, line 43, at end insert— 
 '(4A) The committees established by the Panel shall include a committee representing the interests of disabled and elderly people; and any such committee shall include a majority of members who are themselves disabled people or of pensionable age.'.
 Amendment No. 144, in 
clause 23, page 22, line 18, at end add 'having regard to the need to make the information or advice accessible to persons with disabilities'.
 New clause 5—Function of promoting inclusive design— 
'(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to take such steps, and to enter into such arrangements, as appear to them calculated— 
 (a) To bring about a better awareness and understanding of inclusive design principles, techniques and standards among— 
 (i) the designers and manufacturers of apparatus designed or adapted for use in connection with electronic communications services or associated facilities; and 
 (ii) the providers of electronic communications services; 
 (b) To encourage the designers, manufacturers and service providers mentioned in paragraph (a) to adopt inclusive design principles and techniques in the development of new apparatus, facilities and services; and 
 (c) to bring about a better public awareness and understanding of inclusive design in relation to electronic communications apparatus, facilities and services. 
 (2) References in this section to ''inclusive design'' are references to designs which result in apparatus and services which are accessible to, and usable by, as many people as reasonably possible and to the greatest extent possible without the need for special adaptation or specialised design. 
 (3) References in this section to electronic communications services includes websites.'.

John Greenway: We are grateful to the Minister for agreeing to move the knife. For the benefit of members of the Committee who are not party to such discussions, we believe that this group of clauses is likely to contain more important issues that might otherwise remain undebated than the following group contains. None the less, we are anxious to make progress.
 The amendments relate to people with disabilities, the elderly and people on low incomes. We agree with the Government that it is vital that the needs and interests of such people, especially those with disabilities, are recognised and furthered under the 
 Bill. We warmly welcome clause 3(3)(i) and its specific statement that Ofcom must have regard to 
''the needs of persons with disabilities, of the elderly and of those on low incomes'',
 but, as the Minister knows, several organisations, in particular the Royal National Institute of the Blind, have questioned whether that reference goes far enough. The amendments probe whether the existing wording is adequate, or whether it needs to be strengthened to have the effect and impact that the Government intend. 
 Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 would ensure that Ofcom's general duties encompass a firmer focus on the importance of access for the disabled, the elderly and those on low incomes. It is important that access for those people should, as far as possible, be equal or equivalent to that for others. Amendment No. 140 would ensure that the disabled and other excluded groups benefited from Ofcom's media literacy work. Amendment No. 141 would enable the content board to give informed advice on the provision and quality of content services—such as subtitling, audio description and signing—for disabled people, and on the representation of disabled and older people in the media. 
 Amendment No. 142 would ensure that Ofcom does not overlook or under-represent the experiences of disabled and older people in its research work. Amendment No. 143 would highlight for the consumer panel the interests of those with disabilities, which could be an important part of its work. Amendment No. 144 would ensure that the advice given to disabled people is available in accessible formats. That is a big objective. I do not think that we have to take the Committee through what it would mean in practice for broadcasters, but we recognise what its effects would be. It is important that advice to disabled or elderly people is available in a format with which they are familiar and which ensures that they will receive the message. 
 New clause 5 addresses an important issue relating to those who design and produce apparatus such as televisions, radios and remote controls, as well as zappers—I have lost count of the number of those in my house. Such apparatus should be user-friendly for disabled and elderly people. Even at my tender age, I cannot read the wretched pages before me without my glasses, and it is absolutely hopeless trying to do so when one is driving down the motorway and must be in the Whip's Office to see the Chief Whip by 11 o'clock. 
 There is a standard joke in my house: when all else fails, read the instructions. Many devices are now highly technical, so it is important to ensure that people get maximum use from them. I commend the wording of new clause 5, because it does not put a requirement on anyone. It encourages and tries to persuade those who manufacture such devices to have a thought for the disabled and elderly who will have to use them. 
 The issue is not simply whether people can be expected to understand how equipment works; it is how they can make the best use of their equipment. 
 Some of the buttons are so small, and the lettering underneath so tiny, that people cannot see them. If we are to move into a digital future that even the elderly and those who are very short sighted—including those who can hardly see at all—can get the best from, it is important that we spend a few moments considering whether the Bill goes far enough in ensuring that those matters are properly addressed by Ofcom and the media industry. Although the Minister might suggest that the wording is already adequate, it is important that the Committee addresses the issue and provides time to consider the needs of vulnerable people so that we can ensure that they can enjoy all the benefits of the future digital age.

Richard Allan: We share many of the concerns of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) about access for disabled people. Amendment No. 154 tries to cover some of the same ground as new clause 5, which deals with access devices. It is important to address that matter because the Ofcom process is based on the assumption that the market will provide. In telecommunications and broadcasting, the market will often provide, but we are concerned that the market might not provide effectively for people with disabilities and specific access needs unless there is a stronger duty on Ofcom to ensure that they are able to talk to manufacturers and providers of services in a way that encourages them to offer such provision.
 There are good examples of how the market is currently delivering. Microsoft has spent a lot of time and trouble building accessibility programmes into Windows software; that has become increasingly mainstream. However, as the hon. Gentleman said, access has still not been provided in many respects, specifically with regard to the physical layout of devices and the features that are available on hardware, as opposed to software in which there have been great strides forward. Amendment No. 154 seeks to tackle the issue by saying that Ofcom must intervene; it must have powers to take steps to encourage accessibility when the market is not delivering. 
 Amendment No. 155 is slightly broader in scope, although it, too, refers to access. It is clear that it means access for disabled people, but in the amendment we are suggesting that access should be a major driver for Ofcom in a general sense, in addition to the other drivers outlined in clause 3. We are suggesting that there should be a specific reference to access, so we are thinking not only about disability, but about issues such as quality of access to telecoms services and universality of access. The inclusion of the word ''access'' strengthens Ofcom's ability to act in such areas. 
 Amendments Nos. 158 and 159 deal with public understanding and media literacy especially in respect of disability. Ofcom could play a major role. When one visits other countries, one frequently discovers that they have higher levels of subtitling. That offers a good indication of where nations have got to with media literacy, and many countries have more subtitling on mainstream television than the UK has historically had. 
 The Minister stated that the Government intend to encourage more subtitling and to improve other forms of accessibility that have a significant impact on the quality of individuals' lives. We are seeking to put that in the Bill, or at least to initiate a debate about the way in which Ofcom will be able to do that and the extent to which it will have real teeth to encourage that process. 
 Subtitling is an old media example of accessibility; there are also new media examples. As radio is increasingly delivered in digital format, it can become less accessible in some ways, because more visual input might be required to access a radio service. Ironically, radio, which has traditionally been fine for people with sight impairments, can be made more difficult when it is combined with digital technology, because, in effect, one has to see what is on the screen to use the radio set. There is a range of complexities that technology will not resolve unless thought is put into its development. We would like Ofcom to have a role in ensuring that the thought is there and is conveyed to the manufacturers of equipment and the suppliers of services.

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman may be reassured to know that Blaupunkt in Germany is now working on large-screen displays and the BBC at Kingswood Warren are considering the use of a form of—believe it or not—attenuated subtitling with digital radio transmissions. Whether that will be practical in reality is a different matter.

Richard Allan: I am grateful for that intervention. It is exciting to learn things so early in the morning—to be educated at 9:15 about the details of the new technology being developed. The hon. Gentleman has a point: technology works both ways.
 Technology provides potential solutions, but they must be rolled out. Solutions can be cheap if they are mass marketed. Creating a hardware or software device that increases accessibility would be expensive as an add-on for a few consumers, but could be very cheap if it were built into all devices as standard. That is the type of decision that we want to be made. 
 The market will deliver in some areas. Where it does not, Ofcom is the appropriate body to deal with the matter, but only if it has an access remit. It is not there only to advise that services should be available. There was a long debate about citizens or consumers, but all the British public, to use that technical term, should be able to access the services available. That will require some thought to be given to the many consumers who have some difficulty in accessing mainstream services. 
 Amendment No. 156 mentions the consumer experiences of people with disabilities. We make explicit reference to that group because it is important that the requirement is fed into the Bill. If there are pressure points where a service is not being delivered effectively but could be if a small change were made, those points will be notified by consumers. That consumer voice must be taken to the heart of Ofcom, so that when there are grumbles and potential 
 solutions have been identified, they are fed through the consumer process and get to the decision makers. They are a valuable form of input. 
 The Minister will be aware of the many and various groups representing disabled people that effectively articulate their interests and convey them to decision makers, but if Ofcom is not set up to allow for such a channel of communications, the result could be a lot of needless frustration—people banging on the door rather than being invited in to sit at the table. Amendment No. 156 suggests that groups and individuals with particular interests in access for disabled people should have a seat at the table rather than having to batter down the door.

John Whittingdale: I shall not detain the Committee very long, but I wanted to add one or two comments to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale, who moved the amendment.
 In his response, the Minister will probably say that the Bill already includes provision for Ofcom to take account of the needs of disable people. That is undoubtedly true—see clause 3(3)(i). However, disabled people are concerned that their needs form only one of three categories in one of 13 different factors that Ofcom will have to take into account. Our purpose is to strengthen the need for Ofcom to bear in mind the wants and needs of disabled people. That is the purpose of many of the amendments. We will not necessarily press all of them, but we want the Minister to put on record that Ofcom must always have that important need at the front of its mind. 
 Much has been achieved already through the advance of technology. Digital television has enabled subtitling to be available on a wide scale, and many broadcasters have woken up to the fact that it is in their commercial interests to provide it. We are told that 1 million people use subtitling whenever they can, and 5 million people use it frequently. It may not only be deaf people who use it, but people who find it difficult to understand English. That is why broadcasters have seen a commercial interest to provide it. 
 The needs of people who are blind or partially sighted are a little harder to meet. Audio description technology is available, but often expensive to provide. I am reluctant to impose a great burden on small companies, especially those that might find it difficult to meet the cost of providing additional audio description. I am reluctant to mandate provision, but if it is possible to provide the technology at a cost that is not enormous, we should encourage it. I do not want Ofcom suddenly to extend its powers into the manufacture of electronic apparatus and remote controls, because that would represent a huge expansion. We must concentrate on promoting awareness. 
 New clause 5 relates to inclusive design. It is important because as more and more happens on our screens, the inability to access material on screen will make life harder and harder. It is important to make access to material on screen as easy as possible for people who might have difficulty. Inclusive design 
 is an important way of doing that, which is why new clause 5 contains terms such as ''bring about'' and ''encourage''. The new clause's purpose is not to mandate but to urge the industry that is responsible for manufacturing items to bear in mind that some people will find it very difficult to manipulate small keys or read small text. It might be quite easy to do something to meet those needs. 
 I have outlined the purpose of the amendments. As I said, we might not press them, but it is important to put on record the fact that the issue with which they deal is vital to many people.

Kim Howells: I welcome the points raised by the hon. Members for Ryedale, for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). The Government are committed to an inclusive society. That is a central tenet of our policies and it is right that the Committee should thoroughly discuss of the interests of persons with disabilities, the elderly and people on low incomes. Although the Bill has been subject to mild criticism—nothing more than that—I believe that I can show that we are ensuring that the interests of several of the most vulnerable groups in our society are taken into account.
 Clause 3(3)(i) requires Ofcom to have regard to the needs of persons with disabilities, the elderly and people on low incomes when performing all its general duties. Clause 16(4) requires Ofcom to ensure that when appointing members to the consumer panel, the panel will be able to give informed advice about, among other things, 
''the interests of disadvantaged persons, persons with low incomes and persons with disabilities''.
 Clause 16(6) gives the consumer panel a duty to have regard to such people. Clause 24(3) gives Ofcom a duty in relation to employment in broadcasting and training 
''to take all . . . steps as they consider appropriate for promoting the fair treatment of disabled persons''.
 Clause 325 requires holders of broadcasting licences who meet the thresholds to promote the fair treatment of persons with disabilities. 
 Clause 293 requires Ofcom to draw up, publish and ensure compliance with a code giving guidance on the extent to which television services 
''should promote . . . understanding and enjoyment by . . . persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, and . . . blind or partially-sighted''
 and the means by which that should be promoted. The code will apply to all licensed broadcasters including, for the first time, cable and satellite broadcasters. I will set out the targets for the codes because they are important: 80 per cent. of all programmes and 90 per cent. of programmes on Channels 3 and 4 are to be subtitled; 5 per cent. of programmes are to be signed; and 10 per cent. of programmes are to be audio-described. I will say more about that last one in a moment because the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam has raised the issue. It is an important matter and one that I am worried about. 
 We want those targets to be met by the 10th anniversary of the start of the service or of the 
 commencement of these provisions for cable and satellite broadcasters—who, by the way, have been extremely co-operative. They have been pioneering in some of their work and have been doing things off their own backs, which has been refreshing. The universal service order, a draft form of which will be available shortly, aims to safeguard the interests of disabled end users and to ensure access to, and the affordability of, publicly available telephone services that are equivalent to those enjoyed by all other end users. 
 The hon. Members for Ryedale and for Sheffield, Hallam spoke about audio-description models. We are making a lot of progress in other fields but I am worried about that one. I do not know what has happened over the years, but there seems to be a disruption between, on the one hand, the Royal National Institute of the Blind and other groups who represent the interests of people who are blind or who lack some visual faculty, and, on the other hand, the manufacturers and the Government. 
 About eight months ago, I pulled together a seminar of everybody involved and I was quite shocked at the lack of progress. I do not think that that is anyone's fault, but it is a problem. Part of the problem is in defining the market. How many people would want to buy such a service? How much would it cost? What about affordability and the right to access the service? Technical issues arise and I hope that Ofcom will ensure that progress is made. As I say, I was surprised and disappointed that progress had not been made in recent years. 
 The hon. Member for Ryedale made an important point about design. The market in this sector, as in many others, is completely bemused by meeting the demands of young, fit people. Some art colleges in this country are working very hard. For example, the Royal College of Art has a long-running programme on design for age, which addresses some of the problems that the hon. Gentleman raised—for example, the size of buttons, and whether people who are over 55 have enough strength in their hands to open bottles. [Laughter.] 
 The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam asked about the seriousness with which we take the size of visual displays and lettering on televisions and even on digital radio. People assume that, because we are switching to digital, everyone will benefit, but it may not benefit everyone. We must ensure that the change takes account of everyone's capacity, not only that of Mr. and Mrs. Average.

Richard Allan: As digital advances, the temptation is to make everything multimedia. By definition, that will mean that people have to use all their senses to get full enjoyment of the product. As the Minister suggests, the risk is that digital will encourage us to make things less, not more, accessible.

Kim Howells: Absolutely—I could not agree more. It is proper that we debate design, and I want Ofcom to encourage manufacturers to produce new equipment that is better designed for people with disabilities and without.
 The Government have been active in raising awareness about information and communication technology among people with disabilities through initiatives such as ICT learning centres, IT for all and UK Online computer training, and through the provision of financial support for the work of the full mobility group, which is an umbrella group of disability organisations that has done excellent work in improving access to equipment for disabled people. 
 I repeat that the Government are committed to an inclusive society. The Bill will help us deliver that as part of a raft of measures and I would not have it any other way.

John Greenway: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He has certainly taken on board all the points that have been raised. Should further queries emerge, there might, perhaps, be an opportunity to return to those matters when we come to deal with the relevant clauses. In the spirit of the Minister's response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Simon Thomas: I beg to move amendment No. 174, in
clause 3, page 3, line 48, after 'Kingdom', insert 'with particular regard to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland'.

Peter Atkinson: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 176, in
clause 7, page 8, line 23, at end insert— 
 '(4A) If the part of the United Kingdom referred to in subsection (2)(c) is Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, OFCOM must consult with the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly as appropriate before carrying out such an assessment.'.{**w8**} 
No. 177, in 
clause 11, page 11, line 20, at end insert— 
 '(4A) In making such appointments with respect to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, OFCOM must consult with the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly as appropriate.'.
 No. 178, in 
clause 12, page 13, line 12, at end add— 
 '(7) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to ensure the establishment of advisory content committees for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.'.
 No. 184, in 
clause 16, page 18, line 5, at end insert— 
 '(3A) In appointing persons to be national members of the Consumer Panel, the Secretary of State must consult as appropriate with the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly.'.
 No. 186, in 
clause 16, page 18, line 29, after 'State', insert 'in consultation with the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or Northern Ireland Assembly as appropriate.'.
 No. 189, in 
clause 17, page 19, line 5, at end add— 
 '(7) It shall be the duty of the Consumer Panel to establish advisory consumer panels for— 
 (a) England, 
 (b) Scotland, 
 (c) Wales, and 
 (d) Northern Ireland.'.
 New clause 8—Duty to establish and maintain National Advisory Committees— 
'(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to establish and maintain National Advisory Committees for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. 
 (2) The Chair and membership of these committees shall be appointed by the Secretary of State. 
 (3) In making such appointments in respect of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State shall seek nominations from the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly respectively. 
 (4) The National Advisory Committees may review all of OFCOM's work in respect of their individual territories. 
 (5) The National Advisory Committees may issue such recommendations to OFCOM or the Secretary of State with respect to their territories as they see fit. 
 (6) The National Advisory Committees shall produce an annual report on their activities.'.

Simon Thomas: The amendments relate to Ofcom's dealings with the devolved Administrations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Before I launch into my explanation of the amendments, Mr. Atkinson, I apologise to the Committee for being late this morning. I am moving my flat as we speak, although as hon. Members can see, I am not physically present at the move, so I am taking a leap of faith. I hope that I shall return to a flat that is full of furniture and that I have not been moved out without being moved in.
 It will help the Committee if I explain how the amendments hang together. Although they are grouped under clause 3, several amend other clauses, some are consequential to amendments to clause 3 and others are part of a belt and braces approach to what Ofcom might do. Amendment No. 174 would amend clause 3(3)(l), which currently states that Ofcom must take into account 
''the different interests of persons in the different parts of the United Kingdom''.
 I welcome that as a step forward. It would, however, be useful to refer specifically to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. These days, when we say, ''different parts of the United Kingdom'', we know that that means the devolved Administrations. It will be interesting to find out what will happen in England in the light of regional assemblies Bill.

John Whittingdale: If the clause is amended to say that Ofcom should pay regard in particular to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, is not the implication of that that it should pay less regard to people who live in England?

Simon Thomas: Far be it from a member of Plaid Cymru to suggest such a thing. We are asking Ofcom to consider the different needs of the different parts of the United Kingdom. The demands of the devolved Administrations will appear on Ofcom's radar very early on and it is important that we flag that matter in some of the duties that we give to it. The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford should not consider the amendment on its own. It is important that he
 recognise that it fits into a pattern of amendments that are intended to amend the hierarchy to achieve a better integration between Ofcom and the devolved Administrations.
 I readily accept that I will not get all these amendments. That is why I have taken a belt and braces approach, starting with the more minimal demands and moving on to demands for a more comprehensive infrastructure for Ofcom with regard to the devolved Administrations.

Chris Bryant: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts that he will not get all his amendments. I hope that he is letting himself down slowly.
 Does the hon. Gentleman accept that amendment No. 174 to clause 3(3)(l) fails to acknowledge that there may be many more similarities between rural or semi-rural areas in England, Wales and Scotland than there are similarities between those countries?

Simon Thomas: No, I do not accept that at all. The rest of paragraph (l) will still read:
''and of those living in rural and in urban areas''.
 That is a UK-wide remit for Ofcom. I accept that there are rural areas in Wales that have much in common with rural areas in Cumberland, Devon and other places that might have trouble with broadband, for example, and I see no problem with that.

Kim Howells: Canary wharf.

Simon Thomas: It may even come to that.
 Amendment No. 176 would amend clause 7, which gives Ofcom the duty to produce impact assessments. My amendment makes it clear that if Ofcom produces an impact assessment that relates to activities in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, it should consult with the devolved Governments in those territories. I think that the amendment is reasonable. Ofcom should, in terms of good practice, consult with the devolved Governments anyway, but I am keen to put the provision in the Bill because there is nothing in it at the moment that gives any direction to Ofcom about consultation with devolved Governments. We would be very remiss to take things forward as they are. 
 Amendment No. 177 would amend clause 11, which relates to the content board. The amendment would ensure that appointments to the board of members who represent people living in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—a move that I welcome—are made in consultation with the devolved Governments. Amendment No. 178 would amend clause 12 to establish an advisory content board for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The advisory board would advise Ofcom on content issues, so there would be a wider panel of membership available to deal with the interface with devolved Governments. In an English context, there will soon be regional assemblies. The advisory content board would deal with regional government and would filter through the more pertinent issues for the Ofcom content board to deal with. 
 Amendment No. 184 would amend clause 16 similarly to how amendment No. 177 would amend clause 11, but would do so in respect of the consumer 
 panel. The Bill provides that people representing Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland should be appointed to the consumer panel. Those appointments should be made in consultation with devolved Governments. Amendment No. 186 is consequential to amendment No. 184. It would insert an acceptance of the fact that, as the Secretary of State has the right to remove members from the consumer panel, he or she should consult, for example, the Northern Ireland Assembly before removing a member of the consumer panel representing Northern Ireland. It is a pretty reasonable amendment. 
 Amendment No. 189 would amend clause 17. It is similar to amendment No. 178, and would establish advisory consumer panels for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The amendment would be particularly relevant to the work of bodies such as the Broadcasting Council for Wales, which seems to be disappearing under the infrastructure of the Bill. It is worth keeping that body in the Welsh public political sector, and creating such bodies in the other devolved administrations. 
 New clause 8 would put a duty on Ofcom 
''to establish and maintain National Advisory Committees for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.''
 I hope that the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford has now realised that I have not forgotten England in my amendments. Whether I include England simply depends on what is relevant to a particular passage in the Bill. 
 The national advisory committees would seek to assist Ofcom in its work in respect of the individual countries of the United Kingdom. The national advisory committees should be able to review Ofcom's work and, for example, publish an annual report for the devolved Governments. They would be independent of Ofcom because appointments to them would be made by the Secretary of State. They would introduce an element of wider citizenship into the debate on Ofcom. I will not repeat all my citizenship arguments from two days ago, but I will say more about the importance of citizenship in the context of Welsh public policy and in the wider context of devolved government. 
 Having explained my amendments and having told the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) that I do not expect all of them to be accepted, I should tell the Committee where the amendments come from. Some hon. Members may consider them to be a narrow, nationalist plot dreamed up in the back rooms of Plaid Cymru. That would be a reasonable assumption for an hon. Member who had not read the submission from the Government in the National Assembly for Wales, who are not a narrow, nationalist Government but a Labour and Liberal Democrat Government. 
 All the amendments in my name, apart from No. 174, arise directly from recommendations and requests from the Liberal Democrat Minister for Culture, Sport and Welsh Language in the Labour Administration in Wales. I am therefore looking forward to seeing where support for the amendments will come from. Those requests came in a formal letter 
 about a decision of the National Assembly for Wales that was taken on 9 July. They are requests to the Secretary of State for matters to be included in the Communications Bill. 
 Of course, the National Assembly for Wales started with a bigger request that we cannot discuss during debates on this Bill because it was discussed during proceedings on the Office of Communications Act 2002. That bigger request was for a person nominated by the National Assembly for Wales to be on the Ofcom board. I understand that the Scottish Executive made a similar request and that the Northern Ireland Assembly also debated the issue, although I do not know whether it made a formal request to the Government. However, both Scotland and Wales asked specifically for a member from their territories on the Ofcom board. 
 We had that debate in the Standing Committee that debated the Ofcom Bill, and we lost the argument. However, I want to ask the Secretary of State, through the Minister, about hierarchy. The request from the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Executive to have a representative has been turned down, but the question then arises of how Ofcom will work with the devolved Administrations. We are Westminster MPs working on UK-wide legislation that will have a real impact in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In those areas, there are expectations and a democratic demand that will have to be met in the Bill. 
 As I say, the specific request for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to be represented on the Ofcom board has been turned down. That means that when debating these amendments and considering the five existing regulators, we start from a position that is a significant step back from the position of the devolved Administrations. There is a Welsh board member on the Radio Authority; there is a Welsh board member on the Independent Television Commission; there is a Welsh Advisory Committee on Telecommunications; and there is the Broadcasting Council for Wales. Therefore, hon. Members can see that there is a pre-devolution infrastructure in Wales—predating the establishment of the Welsh Assembly—giving it a voice on broadcasting and telecommunication issues, which are the two main areas in the Bill. I am concerned that the infrastructure in the Bill does not seek to replicate even that level of representation for Wales. These amendments do not seek to move the devolution settlement forward. I am simply trying to establish that Ofcom and the Bill will operate in ways that replicate or extend the pattern of representation that we had in the past—even though that was inadequate on occasions. 
 The central issues arise in new clause 8, which would establish a type of communications council for Wales. The Welsh Assembly requested that. It wants a council to be established to deal with all the relevant issues, but not in a statutory way: the council should be able to debate and review all the issues arising from 
 the Bill, and then to present a report on its conclusions to Ofcom for consideration. 
 The Welsh Assembly seeks to establish, not a separate statutory infrastructure, but a citizens' voice in Wales to debate all communications issues and to which Ofcom must be prepared to listen. That council would be in a position to produce a report for the Welsh Assembly to debate, so it would have the weight of that august body behind it as well. That is the Welsh Assembly's central secondary backstop. Having failed to gain representation on Ofcom, it said, ''Okay, if we are not going to have someone in Ofcom, let us at least have a communications council for Wales.'' New clause 8 is designed to achieve that. 
 Two further issues centre on the activities of the consumer panel and the content board. I am grateful that the Bill will now place someone on those bodies who represents Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, because that is a step forward. However, that person will not be representing their nation's devolved Government. The amendment seeks to strengthen the ties between Ofcom and the devolved Governments and Administrations by saying that those representatives should at least be appointed in consultation with the devolved Governments. 
 The Strategic Rail Authority has a similar process. It is nothing new to have UK-wide bodies with members who represent parts of the UK—in particular, those that have devolved Governments—and for such members to be appointed in consultation with those Administrations. In the Strategic Rail Authority, that happens in respect of both Wales and Scotland, so there is an individual who—in theory, at least—can at any time produce a report of relevance to Wales and Scotland.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman appears to be seeking a fully devolved responsibility for broadcasting. Would he like S4C to be devolved to the Welsh Assembly?

Simon Thomas: First, I do not see how the hon. Gentleman can conclude from these rather tame amendments that I am going for fully devolved broadcasting in Wales. On the second point, the hon. Gentleman may care to read my party's manifesto because it is pretty clear about that. Of course Plaid Cymru's ultimate aim is to devolve broadcasting to Wales—our ultimate aim is to devolve most things from Westminster to Wales. However, it would stretch even the credibility of the hon. Gentleman to claim that the amendments do anything along those lines, because they fall short even of what the Labour Government in Cardiff requested.
 In the amendments, I am trying to strengthen not only the integration and interface between the devolved Governments and Ofcom, but the views of consumers and citizens—or the public interest, if we cannot use the word citizens—in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland about the working of Ofcom. A further request from the National Assembly for Wales was that Ofcom should not meet only in London. I was pleased to hear what the Minister said on Tuesday about bringing Ofcom out. 
 It is valuable to refer to what the First Minister of Wales said last night. He made an important speech in which he rejected new Labour values and stated: 
''In other words, in welfare markets, producer choice, rather than consumer choice, is too likely to be the outcome.''
 Rhodri Morgan says that he wants a rejection of the increasing tendency of Westminster legislation to address only consumer choice issues; he wants it to address universal provisions instead. That is relevant to the debate surrounding Ofcom and to the debate that we had on Tuesday. Without revisiting that debate, I think that my amendments would strengthen the public interest in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland by giving the public in those countries—and in England, in several respects—a way off calling Ofcom to account. That would not be statutory, but Ofcom could be called to account using a democratic process through the devolved Administrations. 
Several hon. Members rose—

Peter Atkinson: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the Committee that we have been sitting for almost an hour and we have to deal with 24 clauses and 13 groups of amendments by 5 pm. I ask members of the Committee to bear that in mind while they are speaking.

John Robertson: I shall try to be brief, Mr. Atkinson.
 After reading the amendments, I find myself agreeing with the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford for what I hope will be the first and last time in Committee. That will certainly not do my political credibility any good. He is absolutely right that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) showed a bias toward the Celtic nations and gave no thought to England. That is totally unfair because the Bill should not give special handouts but should be even-handed. Amendment No. 174 is slightly biased. 
 I believe that amendment No. 176 is a delaying amendment that would slow the process because an Assembly or Parliament would have to be consulted before anything could be done. That is not what Ofcom is there to do. It is there to act as quickly as possible and to get the job done, whether that is appointing and reappointing people or just doing its general work. If a precedent were set that there should be discussion with the Scottish Parliament or one of the Assemblies, the process would be automatically slowed. That is not what the people of this country want. 
 Amendment No. 177 is slightly different. It has merit because if one is going to employ somebody, perhaps some form of consultation should occur. However, such employment should not be decided by the Assemblies or the Parliament but by Ofcom. Ofcom is paid to pay such employees; the Assemblies are not paid to pay Ofcom to pay people. 
 Amendment No. 178 might also have merit, but if it were accepted, the body would grow. The body of Ofcom would develop legs called Scottish Ofcom, Welsh Ofcom and Northern Ireland Ofcom. If and when regional assemblies were introduced, we would have regional Ofcoms. The body would become so 
 large and unmanageable that the board would have great difficulty running the show.

Eric Joyce: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill permits the establishment of content bodies in Scotland, Wales or wherever Ofcom deem appropriate? It is simply a case of leaving things flexible rather than making them compulsory.

John Robertson: My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I must have missed. I agree that when Ofcom deems a body necessary, one should be established. However, the Scottish Parliament or the Assemblies in Northern Ireland and Wales should not be the powers that drive such bodies forward; Ofcom should be in charge of them. If there is too much political input into the body, we cannot be surprised if it makes political decisions.
 One of the Opposition's complaints has been about who will be appointed to the Ofcom board. It would not matter who was appointed, they would still complain, but the more we politicise a body such as Ofcom, the more complaints there will be, from politicians as well as the general public. The most important thing is to provide a service to the people and not to have too much interference at the end of the day. 
 The hon. Member for Ceredigion says that new clause 8 is not a nationalist plot—he could have fooled me. It has the fingerprints of nationalism all over it. That he wants to separate us all into little boxes of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and that England is excluded is no surprise, especially to our opposition in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman tabled his amendments and will be disappointed. The only amendment that I can support in any way at all—I shall listen to the Minister's reply before I decide whether to support it—is amendment No. 195.

Nick Harvey: I rise to support the general thrust of the amendments, although I share the concerns that amendment No. 174 is seriously defective.
 The Bill makes Ofcom a United Kingdom-wide body, which is absolutely right. Certainly, many of the economic and market considerations that Ofcom will address are genuinely UK-wide issues and should be dealt with on that level. However, some cultural, consumer content issues that make sense for national or, in the case of ITV, regional considerations must be taken into account. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response. 
 The hon. Member for Ceredigion observed that he had adopted a belt-and-braces approach in tabling so many amendments—that is certainly true. It would not make sense to implement all of them, but the Minister may entertain some of them. 
 On the duty to consult, the objection just raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) was rather thin. We are talking not about statutory consultation with the general public but about consultation with the Minister responsible in each of the devolved Governments. I would not have thought that a phone call, fax or e-mail between ministerial offices exchanging a few biographies was 
 likely to delay matters unduly. At the most, it would be a question of only a few days. The Government would do well to entertain that amendment. 
 As for the suggestion of establishing the various committees or panels, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion said, several bodies in Wales and elsewhere already exist to deal with such issues. What objection can there be to some such body being included in the Bill? I accept that the Bill makes a nod in that direction, but the Government must be aware of the sensitivities that have surfaced in the past when Bills have merely made provision for bodies to exist rather than requiring their establishment. The general thrust of the amendments is sound, and I support it. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Michael Fabricant: I particularly wanted to speak to the amendments because I supported so much of what the hon. Member for Ceredigion said when we debated the Office of Communications Act 2002. I congratulate him for noting the change in the Bill. At least we now know that there will be representatives from England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland on the content board as well as offices established. Previously that was not to be the case.

Kim Howells: That is not true.

Michael Fabricant: If not, the Minister can explain the matter to us in his response, but we discussed it in great detail at the time—[Interruption.]—The sedentary interventions of the hon. Member for Rhondda are only slowing me down. I am trying to make a brief speech. However, I shall give way to him.

Chris Bryant: If the hon. Gentleman puts his memory back into gear, he will recall that, during discussions on the Ofcom Bill, the Minister made it clear that both issues would be met.

Michael Fabricant: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman is missing the point. The Minister said that such matters would be met only because the hon. Member for Ceredigion kept referring to them.

Kim Howells: God knows, I do not want to delay the hon. Gentleman, but if he can put his memory into gear, he will recall that that Bill was about setting up an organisation that could form itself, nothing else.

Michael Fabricant: It is not my intention to go out of order and delay proceedings. I wanted to make only a brief contribution to the debate. I recall there being a heated debate at the time. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion on speaking with such passion, but I do not recall great enthusiasm from Ministers for either representatives on the content board or regional representation. It is particularly important that such issues are being dealt with today. I also hope that the Minister will respond to the interesting point made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion, namely the fact that the Strategic Rail Authority has a structure for dealing with devolved bodies. I do not want to be too prescriptive, but if the Minister can stop chuntering and listen for a moment, perhaps I can ask him to explain the difference
 between the structures of the Office of Communications and the Strategic Rail Authority.

Kim Howells: We are here to talk about Ofcom, not the Strategic Rail Authority.
 Throughout the process of establishing Ofcom as a new fully converged regulator for the whole of the communications sector, we have made it clear that its board must remain small and not bogged down by bureaucracy. It must be flexible enough to respond quickly to fast-changing circumstances in a sector where change is happening at great speed. 
 To be effective, the Ofcom board must act collegiately and strategically. It cannot be representative of the many varied interests and stakeholders. In its recent report, the Better Regulation Task Force recommended that the boards of economic regulators should be made up of a mix of executive and non-executive members and that they should operate on a functional basis and not be made up of representatives of stakeholder interests. I endorse that approach. 
 Clause 3 obliges each member of the Ofcom board to have regard to the interests of different parts of the United Kingdom when carrying out their functions. The board as a whole is charged with that requirement, not just one member of it. Amendment No. 174 would require Ofcom to have particular regard to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. As I have said, the obligation under clause 3(3) relates to the United Kingdom as a whole, and that obviously encompasses Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. As the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford reminded us, 49 million people happen to live in England as opposed to 5 million in Scotland, 2.9 million in Wales and 1.7 million—tops—in Northern Ireland. We must have a sense of perspective when considering such matters.

Chris Bryant: Clause 3(3)(l) concerns those living in rural and urban areas. Will the provision allow Ofcom to consider in particular congruence between constituencies and areas in England, Wales and Scotland such as former mining constituencies?

Kim Howells: Yes, it certainly would—not that the hon. Gentleman represents a former mining constituency, although I am sure that he is not suggesting that he is. However, his question is important.
 It is interesting to consider the make-up of this Standing Committee. I calculate that we have four Welsh Members, six Scottish Members and fifteen English Members. I want to break down the English membership; it is important to do so—although I can see you glancing at the clock, Mr. Atkinson. We have two from Yorkshire, six from the midlands—although what comprises the midlands is a subject for geographic debate—one from the east of England, one from London, two from the south, one from the north-west and two from the west.

John Whittingdale: I am the last person to advocate the idea of regions. My constituents in Essex do not consider themselves part of the same region as the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for South
 Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). However, we both come under this Government's curious creation of an eastern region.

Peter Atkinson: Order. We have had our fun, but shall we get back to the Communications Bill?

Kim Howells: The Government are committed to ensuring that the interests of the nations and regions are properly represented in Ofcom and in the structures that will be established. David Currie has visited Scotland and Wales and has listened carefully to the views of the devolved Administrations and others.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Does the Minister acknowledge that the cumulative effect of many of these amendments will be to strengthen the hand of the devolved Administrations? I do not want to underplay the role of those Administrations, but does the Minister acknowledge the importance of Members of this House in setting up Ofcom in its regulatory role?

Kim Howells: My hon. Friend makes an important point, with which I agree. These are not devolved matters; they are matters for this House. The board is considering options for the structure of Ofcom and the needs of the regions and nations will be taken into account.
 New clause 8 would require Ofcom to establish national advisory committees for each nation. Hon. Members must bear it in mind that the vast majority of the functions and responsibilities of Ofcom are not—as my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) has just made clear—devolved matters. They will be carried out by Ofcom on a UK basis. We acknowledge that there are areas of crossover with matters that have been devolved. However, we believe that our proposals for Ofcom are the most appropriate means of dealing with those areas. It would not be appropriate to require Ofcom to establish committees—especially committees empowered to review the activities of Ofcom and to make recommendations in areas where the nations' devolved Administrations have no remit. The provisions of the new clause 8 are therefore not acceptable. 
 The Bill already requires the content board and the consumer panel to have members who can represent the views of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Through such mechanisms, the interests of the nations will most appropriately be represented. 
 Many amendments demonstrate a misunderstanding of the methods of appointment to the content board and the consumer panel and the powers of both to establish different committees. Appointments to the content board will be a matter for Ofcom. Amendment No. 177 seeks to require Ofcom to consult the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly when making such appointments. However, those are not public appointments. Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will have any role in making those appointments. Quite rightly, the Westminster Parliament will not have a role either. 
 I cannot therefore see any reason for the formal involvement of the devolved Parliament or Assemblies, as required by amendment No. 177. When considering such appointments, we shall expect Ofcom to consult the relevant territorial departments and, through them, the devolved Administrations in order to seek nominations for suitable candidates. We envisage that such consultative arrangements could be set up in a memorandum of understanding between Ofcom and the relevant Secretary of State for each nation. The final appointments will, and must, be a matter for Ofcom. 
 Amendment No. 178 would require Ofcom to establish content advisory committees for each nation to advise the content board on carrying out its work. Ofcom already has a power under the Office of Communications Act 2002 to establish advisory or executive committees as it sees fit. The Bill will enable Ofcom to authorise the content board to establish advisory committees of its own. 
 We are likely to return to a discussion of the way in which the consumer panel operates during a later sitting. However, amendment No. 186 would require the Secretary of State to consult the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly on the removal of the chairman and members of the consumer panel. Clause 16(8)(b) relates to all members of the consumer panel and not only those who represent national interests. There is no need for the Secretary of State to consult with the Parliament or Assemblies on the removal of every member of the panel, which the amendment would require. The amendment is fatally flawed. I would expect the removal of members representing the nations to be preceded by the same type of informal consultation that preceded their appointment. 
 Amendment No. 176 would require Ofcom to consult with the Scottish Parliament and the Assemblies before it carried out an impact assessment under clause 7 and on any important proposals that were likely to have a significant impact on the general public in parts of the United Kingdom. I find it difficult to see what such a requirement might achieve. If Ofcom believes that such an assessment is appropriate, it will be important for that to be undertaken as quickly as possible. A requirement to consult would cause delay before the assessment could be started. The reason for an assessment would be to consider the impact that the proposals might have. Nothing will prevent the Scottish Parliament or the Assemblies from making representations to Ofcom about any assessment, and Ofcom would have to take such representations into consideration. Therefore, we resist the amendments.

Simon Thomas: It will not surprise anyone when I say how disappointed I am by the Minister's response; I had hoped that he would say a little more. I am grateful to him for his explanation of the appointments system, and I think that the Committee can be grateful for that, but he should have explained more about how Ofcom relates to the devolved Administrations.
 The Minister rejects the amendments on the basis that the issues are not devolved—full stop. However, economic development is devolved to the National Assembly for Wales, so it is spending millions of pounds on the provision of broadband throughout Wales. Is the Minister really saying that the National Assembly cannot have any consultation with Ofcom on a range of economic influences? [Hon. Members: ''He is not saying that.''] Well, that is the impression that I got. I got the impression that an assessment on such issues as broadband in Wales would take too much time if there were consultation with the National Assembly. 
 The Minister misrepresented amendments Nos. 186 and 189. It is clear that the Secretary of State's power to remove a member of the consumer panel in consultation with the devolved Administrations is appropriate, and it clearly relates to the person whom the Secretary of State appointed to the panel in the first place. The amendments are consequential. The Minister failed to answer any of the questions asked by his party's Government in Cardiff about how Ofcom relates to the devolved Administration. 
 I am grateful to the hon. Members for North Devon (Nick Harvey) and for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) for their comments. They gave general support to the idea of ensuring that there is a fruitful working relationship between the devolved Administrations and Ofcom. I am afraid that that will not be the case. I am worried that the devolved Governments will jump up and down complaining about decisions by Ofcom which affect their economic areas, and that they will have no say in the decisions. That may create tension that could be resolved, if not by my amendments, then by amendments along the same lines.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Although I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's arguments, many of his amendments would put into the Bill the requirement to consult the Welsh Assembly. In effect, he is trying to advance devolutionary arguments. As a pro-devolutionist, I hope that when that argument comes before the House, it will come through the front door, not scuffing its feet on the carpet of the tradesman's door, as some of these amendments do.

Simon Thomas: We hear that argument from Labour Members time and again. However, I ask the hon. Gentleman, who is an intelligent, perceptive Member of Parliament, to consider the amendments carefully; there is no devolution in them. Nothing is devolved to the National Assembly for Wales in the amendments. [Interruption.] Nothing is devolved in the amendments. I am not going to debate the matter with the hon. Gentleman across the Room. The amendments do not devolve anything from Ofcom to the Assembly or any other body in the United Kingdom. All they seek to do is achieve a better consultation arrangement with the devolved Administrations.
 It is clear that I will not get the support of the Government for my amendments. Nevertheless, there 
 is a point of principle at stake in some of them. They may not be perfect—they were produced by one person, not by a team—but although I shall withdraw amendment No. 174, I hope that I may press amendment No. 177 to a Division when the time comes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Peter Atkinson: I am prepared to grant a Division on amendment No. 177, but that will happen when we have debated the group of amendments under clause 11.

John Whittingdale: I beg to move amendment No. 132, in
clause 3, page 4, line 13, at end insert 
 'and publish the reasoning for the resolution of any conflict between their general duties.'.

Peter Atkinson: With this we may discuss the following: Amendment No. 197, in
clause 3, page 4, line 13, at end insert 
 'and make public the reasons for their actions'.
 Amendment No. 2, in 
clause 3, page 4, line 24, at end add— 
 '(9) OFCOM's report under paragraph 12 of the Schedule to the Office of Communications Act 2002 (c. 11) (annual report) for each financial year must contain a statement by OFCOM summarising those circumstances where, in OFCOM's opinion, they have been required to reconcile general duties which have been in conflict with each other and how they have sought to do so in the circumstances.'.
 New clause 6—Duty to publish and meet openness standards— 
'(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to publish a statement setting out the standards they are proposing to meet with respect to openness in— 
 (a) the carrying out of their different functions; and 
 (b) providing reasons for any decision made to persons who, in their opinion, are likely to be affected by the matters to which it relates. 
 (2) OFCOM may, if they think fit, at any time revise the statement for the time being in force under this section. 
 (3) t shall be the duty of OFCOM in carrying out their functions to have regard to the statement for the time being in force under this section. 
 (4) Where OFCOM revise a statement under this section, they must publish the revision as soon as practicable. 
 (5) The publication under this section of a statement, or of a revision of a statement, must be in such manner as OFCOM consider appropriate for bringing it to the attention of the persons who, in their opinion, are likely to be affected by the matters to which it relates. 
 (6) OFCOM's report under paragraph 12 of the Schedule to the Office of Communications Act 2002 (c. 11) (annual report) for each financial year must contain a statement by OFCOM summarising the extent to which they have complied during that year with the standards set out under this section.'.

John Whittingdale: At our sitting on Tuesday, we spent some time debating whether sufficient prominence was given to clause 3(3)(b), which is on the principles of regulation, as recommended by the better regulation task force. The Minister was clearly not persuaded by our argument that those principles should be given stronger prominence. The amendments focus on the first of those principles, that of transparency. They would strengthen the
 requirement on Ofcom to be transparent in its decisions.
 Amendment No. 132 refers to clause 3(6), which states that: 
''Where it appears to OFCOM that any of their general duties conflict with each other in a particular case, they must secure that the conflict is resolved in the manner they think best in the circumstances.''
 That is a fairly unremarkable requirement. The amendment would require Ofcom to publish the reason for its decision where there had been such a conflict between its various duties. As we have already debated, given the scope of Ofcom, its many duties, the speed of development of the technology in the sector for which it is responsible and the huge importance of the decisions, there is no doubt that conflicts will arise. Clearly, Ofcom will in some cases have a difficult task in deciding which requirement to give prominence to. Those who will be affected by that decision—both users and providers—should be entitled to know what has led Ofcom to reach a decision. That is the purpose of amendment No. 132. New clause 6 is designed to achieve the same objective. 
 During earlier debates, and particularly during the Joint Committee's debates, consideration was given to whether Ofcom should hold its meetings in public, and it was decided that that may not be appropriate. I do not wish to contest that. However, there is already a requirement on Ofcom to publish a statement on how promptly it is meeting its requirements. The purpose of new clause 6 is to place a similar requirement on Ofcom to publish a clear statement about what it is doing to achieve standards of openness. All Committee members want Ofcom to be open: it is important that everyone who will be affected by it—and, as I have said, they will represent a huge range of interests—understands the way in which it reaches its decisions and the factors that it takes into account. Both amendment No. 132 and the new clause are designed to achieve that objective.

Brian White: I thank the Minister for his comments on regionalism. At this moment, I am also supposed to be on the Committee that is dealing with the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill, so his remarks provide a novel way of combining my obligations.
 Amendment No. 197 arose out of much of the evidence that the Joint Committee heard about the need for Ofcom to be transparent. Several comments were made about the need to understand where Ofcom is coming from, particularly with regard to appeals. The amendment is intended to ensure that when Ofcom makes decisions it explains why it has made them. 
 As the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford said, this is an area where there are fast-changing technologies; what may have been the right decision at one time may no longer be appropriate shortly afterwards, and if the reasons behind decisions are explained people can see what is happening. If Ofcom sets out its reasons, that will contribute to creating the culture of openness and transparency that we all want. Where there are conflicts—particularly 
 those involving European directives—it becomes much more important to accept the reasons. 
 Recently, there has been much criticism of regulators. It has been suggested that some of them have tried to undermine—or, at best, ignore—Government policy, and there are campaigns to make them more accountable to Government. It is important that Ofcom sets out the reasons for its decisions, but I am relaxed about how it does that; it does not matter whether it is done in an annual statement or at the time of the decision. 
 Where there are conflicts between the different stakeholders—such as the work force, different industries, the company making the complaint or the appellant—it is important for them all that the reasons for Ofcom coming to a certain conclusion are made transparent so that everybody understands what the issues are, rather than feeling that Ofcom's decision has appeared out of the ether. That is particularly true for those who make appeals.

Andrew Lansley: I shall speak to amendment No. 2, which is in my name and that of the hon. Member for North Devon. Its purpose is substantially the same as that of the amendment moved by my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford, and that in the name of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White). It differs from them simply in that, where Ofcom is seeking to reconcile conflicts between its general duties, it is required to set those out in a statement in the annual report. The amendment does not insist that Ofcom gives its reasons when each decision is made.
 That is not to say that the reasons for decisions should not be offered when the regulator makes them. However, for the benefit of the wider stakeholders and businesses that are affected by Ofcom's responsibilities, it is important that individual decisions should have reasons attached to them, when that is appropriate. There should also be at least one statement in the annual report in which significant conflicts between general duties are brought together, so that Ofcom has an opportunity to set out how those conflicts are being reconciled. Those who would be affected by Ofcom's decisions, particularly in the early stages, should be able to see the manner of its thinking. That is as close as we could get in the drafting of the Bill to the proposal in paragraph 92 of the Joint Committee's report. 
 Our proposal tried to balance the desirability of Ofcom achieving the greatest possible transparency in its decision making and the risk that that would require it to provide a 
''potentially formulaic explanation of all its decisions by reference to its general duties.''
 That would be burdensome on Ofcom and tedious for the stakeholders, which is one reason why I felt that Ofcom should have the opportunity to address the issue by publishing in the annual report a synthesis of how it performs its general duties. However, any sensible regulator that encountered a novel decision would certainly publish reasons for such a decision. 
 In their response to the Joint Committee the Government generally agreed about the principle behind what was intended and the need to strike the balance that I mentioned, but they did not see a need for that to be expressed in the Bill. It would be extremely undesirable if Ofcom were to publish its annual report and not refer to that issue. Ofcom does not need that flexibility, so we could perfectly happily prescribe the duty in the Bill.

Michael Fabricant: I shall speak briefly in support of amendments, provided, that is, that I get no hostile interventions.
 The Federal Communications Commission in Washington D.C., with which I am familiar, has an especially open policy. One of the reasons for that is to avoid judicial reviews. The Radio Authority has, on occasion, revoked a licence—usually quite rightly, in my view—and suffered a judicial review. That is because it does not have to give a reason, either for revoking or awarding licences. 
 I feel that the workings of Ofcom would be a little more reasonable if they were more open. The policy of both the Opposition and the Government is that government should be open and fair, and the amendment is a natural extension of that.

Kim Howells: I believe that the amendments are important and measured and I am glad that they have been raised. I will resist Nos. 132 and 197 and new clause 6. I will, however, explain to the Committee why I accept amendment No. 2 in principle.
 We expect Ofcom to be a model of good regulatory practice. In some parts of the Bill that is explicit; for example, in clauses 6, 7 and 8. However, throughout the Bill it is implicit that Ofcom should be transparent and that it should be accountable for its actions. I am wary of new clause 6, which appears to provide a rather bureaucratic approach to an integral part of Ofcom's operation. The concept of a statement of openness is worthy, but I am not sure that that is necessary, particularly when one considers the Office of Communications Act 2002. 
 Paragraph 22 of the schedule to that Act makes Ofcom subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and paragraph 23 applies the Public Records Act 1958 to Ofcom. Taken together, those provisions mean that Ofcom's duty to maintain records and respond to requests for information is the same as that of other official bodies. Clause 3(3)(b) requires that in its undertaking of regulatory activities Ofcom should have regard to the principles of good regulatory practice, which include accountability and transparency. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East made that the central theme of his contribution, as did the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire. More specifically, we would encourage Ofcom as a matter of course to set out the reasoning behind its decision when there was a conflict between the duties. 
 I listened to the strong views expressed by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford in support of amendments Nos. 132 and 197, which would insert 
 such a requirement in the Bill. I have noted those views and I am particularly sympathetic to amendment No. 2, which would require Ofcom to include in its annual report a summary of decisions made under subsection (6). That was also proposed by the Joint Committee and it suggested that that was the right approach. If the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire does not press his amendment, I will be happy to accept it in principle and return with an appropriate amendment at a later stage.

John Whittingdale: I am grateful to the Minister. I am slightly hurt that he has picked out the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire rather than the one in my name, but I am sure that it does not indicate any partiality.
 I appreciate the Minister's promise to try to amend the Bill to reflect the wishes that are felt on both sides of the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Duties for the purpose of fulfilling

John Whittingdale: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in
clause 4, page 4, line 44, leave out from 'networks' to end of line 4 on page 5 and insert ', electronic communications services and associated facilities; and'.

Peter Atkinson: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 31, in
clause 4, page 5, line 32, leave out from beginning to 'for' and insert 'with the standards mentioned in subsection (10) to such an extent as is strictly necessary'.
 No. 32, in 
clause 4, page 5, leave out line 36.

John Whittingdale: The purpose of the clause is essentially to ensure that the requirements under the various directives made by the European Union are properly transposed into UK law. Therefore it is important that the wording of the Bill should precisely reflect the requirements under the various directives. I am keenly aware of the widespread view that all too often when we implement directives through legislation there is a tendency to go a little further than is necessarily required. It is known as gold-plating and it should be resisted wherever possible. The amendments change the provisions of the clause so that they precisely reflect what is required under the various directives.
 Amendment No. 30 focuses on article 8(2) of the framework directive. Subsection (3) is drafted in a way that gives a wider meaning than is intended by the framework directive. The framework directive requires national regulatory authorities to promote competition only in relation to the provision of electronic communications networks, electronic communications services and associated facilities, but subsection (3) extends the provision to any type of 
 service that is provided in association with those three categories. That could include television services. 
 Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 refer to subsection (9), which is intended to implement article 17(2) concerning standardisation. That subsection grants Ofcom discretion about whether to encourage compliance with standards; the directive provides that there shall be encouragement to use such standards only where ''strictly necessary''. Once again, the proposal goes beyond what the directive requires to give Ofcom slightly wider powers. The amendment would restore the wording of the Bill to reflect precisely what is required under the terms of the directive.

Richard Allan: I shall be brief. Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 relate to the power in respect of European and international standards. The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford says that he does not want EU directives to be gold-plated, and I have much sympathy with that general principle. However, I am interested in how the standards, especially those referred to in the amendments, will be implemented by Ofcom, as there is potential for conflict.
 Subsection (9) refers to standards to secure interoperability; subsection (6) states that one particular type of network technology should not be favoured, thus there is an inbuilt tension from the beginning. We are asking Ofcom to encourage the use of common standards for interoperability but saying that it must not favour one form of technology rather than another. Potentially, Ofcom will have to make some difficult judgments when implementing the requirements and taking real-life decisions. 
 I have been following a case that involves the use of power line technology for the transmission of data, which has been discussed by various agencies that will form part of Ofcom. In certain circumstances, the use of that technology can interfere with radio spectrum and decisions relating to it will therefore fall within Ofcom's remit. Those who introduce the power line technology will want to do so across the EU, and companies will seek an assurance on the basis that they are conforming to the EU standards referred to in the subsection. It will be a difficult judgment, with the potential to lead to drawn-out legal processes. If companies seek to introduce in the UK a technology that conforms to an EU standard, they will refer to that subsection, say that they are trying to be interoperable and market a product across the European Union, and seek protection from the framework directive. The precise definition, whether we accept the ''strictly necessary'' definition of the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford or the definition in the Bill, will be critical in determining whether companies can go ahead.

Michael Fabricant: It is interesting to note that the Minister referred in a previous sitting to radio astronomy and the application of frequencies. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that radio astronomers and the BBC World Service have said that the provision of data along power lines would interfere with their short-wave transmissions?

Richard Allan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that additional illustration. It is precisely such issues that will confront Ofcom. People are seeking judgment on new forms of technology all the time. They will cite European or international standards and look at the framework directive to govern how decisions are taken.

Chris Bryant: I accept that if Ofcom were required to bring about mandatory standards there might be a problem, but a clause relating to interoperability is absolutely essential to the interests of consumers, otherwise there would be major problems for the buyers of, for example, Nokia telephones if they could speak only to the users of other Nokia telephones.

Richard Allan: I will put my cards on the table: I am strongly in favour of interoperability and international standards and I want them to be observed. My natural instinct is to go with the wording in the Bill. However, the Conservative spokesman has teased out an important issue. An important distinction in future legal cases will relate to whether we accept the wording ''strictly necessary'' or what is currently in the Bill, which is ''consider appropriate''. My instinct is for international standards to be enforced.
 That will also be significant for television standards, particularly digital television standards. Lively debates are continuing on whether we should have pan-European television standards. If we get to that stage, people will bring cases based precisely on what the clause says. People who want to advance common international standards will cite the fact that Ofcom has a duty to promote interoperability; those who wish to go with a proprietory standard will cite the fact that Ofcom should not prefer one technology over another. 
 I am merely asking the Minister to flesh out a little how he envisages the different powers working. Where might we find more detail on the implementation of the provisions, or will that come from Ofcom in future? The interesting and exciting thing is that Ofcom brings together all the different players in a way that did not happen before. The Radiocommunications Agency might have dealt with spectrum issues quite separately from those who were considering broadcasting or power line technology, for example. As I said, I am interested to know how we can get more clarity about the way in which the provisions will be implemented so that we meet the requirements of the framework directive.

Kim Howells: Through you, Mr. Atkinson, I apologise to the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford for upsetting him. He will be pleased when we have finished dealing with this group of amendments.
 I shall talk about the significance of the clause, then address the issues raised by the hon. Members for Sheffield, Hallam and for Maldon and East Chelmsford. As hon. Members will know, a substantial part of the Bill is concerned with the implementation in United Kingdom law of four European directives on the regulation of electronic communications. Indeed, part 2 is largely taken up with those matters. However, one aspect of the directives is dealt with appropriately at this point, 
 immediately following the clause that we have just debated on the general duties of Ofcom. 
 Article 8 of the framework directive, in setting out the basic provisions of the Community regulatory scheme, sets out the policy objectives and regulatory principles that will govern the performance by the national regulatory authorities in respect of the responsibilities that are assigned to them in pursuit of the directives. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam made clear, when Ofcom assumes its regulatory responsibilities, it will become the national regulatory authority for the UK. It will also be the source of the information that he rightly flags up as being required after that point. The objectives required by the directives will therefore become in effect an additional set of duties governing the performance of Ofcom's functions so far as they fall within the scope of the directives. 
 The duties in relation to Ofcom, or ''Community requirements'' as the Bill describes them, are: to promote competition; to contribute to the development of the European internal market; to promote the interests of all citizens of the European Union; to carry out its functions so far as possible without discrimination between technologies or modes of electronic communication—that relates to the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda; to encourage the provision of network access and service interoperability; and to encourage compliance with international standards so far as is appropriate to facilitate service interoperability or to secure freedom of choice for consumers. 
 Mr. Whitt—Whittingdale is popping up again; it is a fascinating place, Mr. Atkinson. The Bill will form part of UK law and has to be construed using the conventions and principles of interpretation of UK law. As those are not the same as the conventions and principles of interpretation of European Community law—the point raised by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford—it is not always possible to use the literal words of directives to obtain the intended effect. The aim is to transpose the effect of directives as faithfully as possible into UK law, and we believe that we have achieved it. 
 Members of the Committee will note that some of the duties that I have listed overlap with, or are similar to, the duties under clause 3—the promotion of competition, for example. Others deal with issues not covered by clause 3. Partly for that reason and partly to provide a clear and distinct implementation of the directive, those requirements are implemented through a separate clause. Because the requirements implement provisions of European law, Ofcom must, under clause 3(5), give them precedence over the clause 3 duties in any case of conflict. I hope that that explanation helps. 
 At first sight, amendment No. 3 looks like a laudable simplification of the Bill. It substitutes a defined term—''associated facility''—for what appears at first sight to be a passage effectively restating exactly 
 the same concept. However, subsection (3)(b) runs wider than the concept of associated facilities because it also covers associated services. It must do so because the directive requires it. In setting out the policy objectives of national regulatory authorities on promoting competition, the directive refers to electronic communications networks and services, and associated facilities and services. If we are to transpose the directive's provisions faithfully, we need the broader concept of ''associated facilities and services''.

Andrew Lansley: I appreciate the Minister's careful response to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford. However, if the intention is to reflect the directive precisely and if amendment No. 30 does not quite achieve that because it should read ''electronic communications services and associated facilities and services'', why would an amendment in those terms be unacceptable?

Kim Howells: That is not the amendment before us. As the hon. Gentleman said, the wording must be precise. If I can move on, it should help to explain the position.
 Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 are designed to replace 
''to such extent as OFCOM consider appropriate''
 in subsection (9) with 
''to such extent as is strictly necessary''.
 At first sight, it seems a more faithful transposition of article 17.2 of the directive, and we shall certainly examine the amendments carefully. If necessary, we shall table suitable amendments on Report. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

John Whittingdale: I can assure the Minister that the small degree of hurt that I felt earlier has largely been removed as a result of his contribution. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire made a good point about amendment No. 30, when he said that the Minister acknowledged that removing two paragraphs and replacing them with a much smaller form of words would simplify and improve the Bill. If the addition of the words ''and services'' to my amendment would negate the need for paragraphs (b) and (c), surely it would be an improvement.
 Nevertheless, I accept the Minister's explanation and welcome his undertaking to re-examine the wording of subsection (9) in order properly to reflect the directive's requirement. I look forward to seeing his later conclusions and perhaps his tabling of amendments on Report. In the spirit of his response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Duties to review regulatory burdens

John Greenway: I beg to move amendment No. 204, in
clause 6, page 7, line 9, after 'secured', insert ', or may be furthered or secured'.

Peter Atkinson: With this it will be convenient to take the following:
 Amendment No. 128, in 
clause 6, page 7, line 11, at end insert— 
 '(c) to seek the views of persons providing services and facilities in relation to which OFCOM have functions on which of these functions should be subject to review.'.
 Amendment No. 3, in 
clause 6, page 7, line 16, leave out 'and'.
 Amendment No. 4, in 
clause 6, page 7, line 18, at end insert 'and 
 (c) whether the procedures for self-regulation offer adequate opportunities for public scrutiny and for reporting on those activities to OFCOM, to the Secretary of State and to Parliament as appropriate.'. 
Amendment No. 50, in 
clause 6, page 7, line 18, at end insert— 
 '(c) whether persons with sufficient commercial knowledge of the persons who may be subjected to the procedures are consulted.'.
 Amendment No. 122, in 
clause 355, page 307, line 7, at end add— 
 '(4) OFCOM's competition functions should form part of the review of regulatory burdens by OFCOM as described in section 6.'.
 New clause 2—Duty to establish and maintain Competition Board 
'(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to establish and maintain a committee to be known as ''the Competition Board''. 
 (2) The Competition Board shall consist of— 
 (a) a chairman appointed by OFCOM; and 
 (b) such number of other members appointed by OFCOM as OFCOM may determine. 
 (3) In appointing a person OFCOM must have regard to the desirability of ensuring that the persons appointed are experts, both users and suppliers of electronic communications, working in the industry who have a commercial knowledge of the market. 
 (4) Before appointing a person to be chairman or another member of the Competition Board, OFCOM must satisfy themselves that he will not have any direct financial or other interest which would be likely prejudicially to affect the carrying out by him of any of his functions as chairman or member of the Competition Board.'.
 New clause 3—Functions of the Competition Board— 
'(1) The functions conferred on the Competition Board must include, to such an extent and subject to such restrictions and approvals as OFCOM may determine, the carrying out on OFCOM's behalf of— 
 (a) functions in relation to ensuring that there is a constant process of evaluating the level of competition in the market, assessing possible moves to self-regulation, and between ex ante and ex post regulation; 
 (b) functions in relation to determining the matters to which a regulatory impact assessment should relate; and 
 (c) functions in relation to addressing and managing the issues of concurrent powers between OFCOM and the Office of Fair Trading. 
 (2) The power of OFCOM to determine the Competition Board's functions includes power to authorise the Board to establish committees and panels to advise the Board on the carrying out of some or all of the Board's functions.'.
 New clause 4—Duty to establish and maintain Economic Panel— 
'(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM, in accordance with the following provisions of this section, to exercise their powers under paragraph 14 of the Schedule to the Office of Communications Act 
2002 (c. 11) to establish and maintain a committee to be known as ''the Economic Panel'' to give advice to OFCOM on economic theory and practice in relation to the exercise of their functions under this Act and, in particular, in relation to the following matters— 
 (a) the nature and operation of markets for electronic networks, electronic communications services and associated facilities; 
 (b) the interests of providers of such networks, services and facilities as well as those of consumers; 
 (c) the promotion of competition between such providers; and 
 (d) economic regulatory policy. 
 (2) The arrangements made by OFCOM under this section must also secure that the Economic Panel are able, in addition to giving advice on the matters mentioned in subsection (1), to make arrangements for the carrying out of such research relevant to the giving of that advice as they think fit. 
 (3) It shall be the duty of OFCOM, in the carrying out of their functions, to consider and, to such extent as they think appropriate, to have regard to— 
 (a) any advice given to OFCOM by the Economic Panel; and 
 (b) any results notified to OFCOM of any research undertaken by that Panel.'.
 New clause 7—Industry consultation— 
'(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to establish and maintain effective arrangements for consultation about the carrying out of their functions with— 
 (a) suppliers in the markets for the services and facilities in relation to which OFCOM have functions; 
 (b) suppliers in the markets for apparatus used in connection with any such services or facilities. 
 (2) The arrangements must include the establishment and maintenance of a panel of persons (in this Act referred to as ''the Industry Consultative Panel'') with the function of advising OFCOM. 
 (3) It shall be the duty of OFCOM, in the carrying out of their functions, to consider and, to such extent as they think appropriate, to have regard to the views given to OFCOM by the Industry Consultative Panel. 
 (4) The members of the Industry Panel shall be appointed by OFCOM and shall comprise a chairman and such other members as OFCOM may determine.'.

John Greenway: I will speak to amendment No. 204 and, if he catches your eye, Mr. Atkinson, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) will speak to the other amendments.
 On Tuesday afternoon, I raised the important question of self-regulation and the opportunity that the Bill and the creation of Ofcom, as a single overarching regulator, provide for self-regulation in television and broadcast advertising. It may be useful to remind the Committee about how broadcast advertising is currently regulated. It is subject to statutory control with pre-clearance by self-regulatory bodies. Television advertising is the responsibility of the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority regulates radio advertising. Advertisements are pre-cleared by the broadcast advertising clearance centre for television, and the radio advertising clearance centre for radio. Under clause 307, Ofcom will take over the ITC and Radio Authority responsibilities. However, clause 3 places a duty on Ofcom to have regard to the promotion and facilitation of self-regulation. 
 Clause 1 gives Ofcom the power to contract out its functions and clause 6 places a duty on Ofcom to keep its functions under review. Clause 6(2)(a), to which the 
 amendment specifically refers, requires Ofcom, in reviewing its functions, to have regard to the extent to which the general duties under clause 3 can be achieved by self-regulation. That is the framework that we are examining. However, subsection 2(a) is couched in the past, not the future, tense on the extent to which the general duties that Ofcom is 
''required under section 3 to further, or to secure,''
 stating that they 
''are already furthered or secured by effective self-regulation''
 However, there is no self-regulatory body for broadcast advertising. 
 I indicated earlier—and the Minister did not contradict me, although he had many questions to answer—that Ministers agree that self-regulation is a sensible development for Ofcom to pursue in the future. That is why we suggest, on the advice of the Advertising Association that it would make sense to do so, to cover the opportunity of future self-regulation by inserting into the Bill via amendment No. 204 the words: 
''or may be furthered or secured''.
 The subsection would then read: 
''In reviewing their functions under this section it shall be the duty of OFCOM—
(a) to have regard to the extent to which the matters which they are required under section 3 to further, or to secure, are already furthered or secured or may be furthered or secured by effective self-regulation.''
 My point might seem technical, but the drafting of clause 6(2)(a) needs attention. Either amendment No. 204 or something similar at a later stage is needed. 
 The issue is vitally important to the Bill and to the future of regulation under Ofcom. Broadcast advertising regulation is a prime candidate for Ofcom to achieve a less bureaucratic regime than has hitherto existed. There will be self-regulation, but Ofcom will retain back-stop powers. Clauses 307, 309 and 310 give Ofcom banning powers in respect of certain advertisements. We will debate those clauses later, but I do not want anyone in the Committee, or anyone who studies this debate, to think that self-regulation means that Ofcom will be powerless to deal with offensive material. It will not be—it has those powers now. 
 The Committee has to face up to the fact that television advertising will be a significant—perhaps the most significant—means of delivering new broadcast services. Developments in multichannel broadcasting, new approaches to retailing such as online sales, and changes in viewing and listening habits mean that we no longer live as we did when the Minister and I were kids, when people could watch only the BBC or ITV, and anybody who watched ITV saw the adverts. It is not like that any more. Traditional certainties of viewing patterns have been undermined by technological and sociological changes. 
 This nation leads Europe in the quality of our advertising, marketing and incentives industry. I remind the Committee of my entry in the Register of 
 Members' Interests, which shows my long association with incentives and promotions. We are market leaders in Europe. The industry recognises that brands now need to be able to advertise, market and promote their products across several platforms at the same time. That is not easily achieved with any speed or certainty if regulatory structures overlap. It is clearly undesirable for one important regulatory structure to require pre-clearance while all the others are self-regulatory. Within the European Commission, there is an advanced self-regulatory regime for sales and promotion throughout Europe. The self-regulatory tide is flowing in the right direction.

John Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that self-regulation has not worked? I am thinking about tobacco advertising in particular, where advertisers have misused self-regulation. Laws have had to be brought in to govern such advertising.

John Greenway: One should not consider the value of self-regulation throughout the media and marketing world on the basis of views on what should and should not be permitted in tobacco advertising. The House and the European Commission have come to a clear judgment on that, and I do not think that the tobacco industry is a particularly good example of self-regulation not working.

Brian White: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Greenway: No, I will not give way, because we are straying away from the point of the amendment.
 The Minister will, I think, support the concept of self-regulation. We are seeing media convergence on a number of different platforms. We should try to achieve one set of rules for the different media and those rules should take account of the different contexts of those media. 
 Despite the interventions, I will not detain the Committee with a lengthy argument on the advantages and benefits of self-regulation—although I would gladly do so if time permitted. However, I will say that self-regulation is fast and flexible. As the Minister knows, the advertising and broadcasting industries are keen to develop proposals for consideration by Ofcom, with the support of the Advertising Standards Authority. All that is for the future, but it is important that the Bill allows for that opportunity. I urge the Minister to consider the amendment very carefully and to ensure that what we want is not accidentally, inadvertently and unintentionally constrained by the Bill's wording. 
 Before I sit down, I urge the Minister to resist amendment No. 4, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire and the hon. Member for North Devon. It makes no sense to impose a requirement on the new self-regulatory body to report to the Secretary of State and Parliament.

Andrew Lansley: If my hon. Friend reads the amendment, he will find that that is not a requirement. The amendment states that it should happen if
''the procedures . . . offer adequate opportunities . . . as appropriate.''
 There is no requirement in the amendment.

John Greenway: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's assurance that the amendment is quite not as bad as it might be, but I still think that it is pretty bad. We are providing an opportunity for Ofcom to report to Parliament. Although a self-regulatory regime for broadcast advertising would be a welcome development, I understand that it would still be within Ofcom's gift to take back any duties, powers and functions that it sees fit. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on amendment No. 204 and resist amendment No. 4.

Brian White: I shall be brief. The hon. Member for Ryedale talked about self-regulation. The Joint Committee recommendation that the Government accepted was about accredited self-regulation. There is a fundamental difference between the two. The powers rest with the regulator but the regulator actually uses the powers in self-regulation through codes of practice. The crucial difference is that the powers exist but the fact that they are exercised in a self-regulatory way makes them effective. Simply leaving things to self-regulation without such backstop powers gives rise to the problems about which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland talked. Accreditation is crucial, and transparency and accountability also matter.

Andrew Robathan: I rise to speak to amendments Nos. 128 and 50 and to new clauses 2 to 4 and 7. They are complementary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale said but take things further. We know that all involved in this vital industry have huge concerns about the regulatory burden and how it will be reviewed. I suspect that we all want a light touch and as little regulation as appropriate, and the amendments reflect that.
 The purpose of amendment No. 128 is to introduce a requirement to consult the industry on the regulatory functions that should be subject to review. I would have thought that that was eminently sensible. Ofcom's requirement to review the regulatory burdens that it places on the communications industry has been welcomed throughout the industry, as has talk of effective self-regulation. It is only sensible that the regulator makes a regular examination of its regulation to determine which aspects are outdated or unnecessary. We want to see whether we can improve those provisions and to include improvements in the Bill. 
 It is all too easy for a regulator to become detached from the industry that it regulates. New technologies and new developments will always call existing regulation into question, which was the experience with Oftel, the Independent Television Commission and others. An example of that is the emergence of interactive television, which developed rapidly beyond anything envisaged in the ITC's codes. Amendment No. 128 would insert a requirement that Ofcom should seek the views of service providers on the aspects of regulation that they believe should be reviewed. That neither undermines Ofcom nor requires Ofcom to act on the industry's views. However, it will be a useful mechanism and allow the industry to give its input into a regular review of Ofcom's regulatory functions. The 
 amendment is not offensive, and would help both Ofcom and the Government. 
 Amendment No. 50 is similar, but approaches the matter from a slightly different angle. As part of the regulatory review process, Ofcom will need to consult businesses with commercial experience of the particular markets under review. The size, variety and pace of development of converged markets will mean that often only the increasingly wide variety of businesses—both suppliers and users—working within the markets will have an appropriate understanding of when regulatory adjustment is required and in what way. Consulting with businesses will be particularly important when deciding when to move from ex-ante to ex-post regulation, a core issue when supporting the process of convergence. 
 Looking at the matter from a different perspective is the competition board proposed under new clauses 2 and 3. I am sure that Ofcom will be staffed by people who are highly qualified to make decisions about the required regulation, size, variety and closer development of converged markets, but because of that closer development, often only those working in the markets will know when regulatory reform is required and on what basis. To remain productive, Ofcom should listen to business on a more systematic basis than is currently provided for under the Bill. The effectiveness of the Bill will have a far-reaching impact on business competitiveness, which is why it is important that the business community has a proper statutory voice that is guaranteed in primary legislation. 
 Let us consider another angle; instead of a competition board, an economic panel could be established. It will be a particular challenge for Ofcom's board to balance the different demands on its time and resources. The consumer panel and the content board will go some way to ensure that their respected spheres of responsibility are regulated sensibly and consistently. They will act as champions for their areas. At present, however, there is no equivalent body within Oftel, for example, to deal with economic regulation and the amendment would correct that position in respect of Ofcom. Why should such a body be needed? I met some members of the Ofcom board last night at the Radio Authority's reception and very sensible they were, too.

Michael Fabricant: That is reassuring.

Andrew Robathan: I was being polite. I was slightly concerned about the political leaning of one or two of them, but never mind.
 The natural tendency of the Ofcom board is to focus on supposedly the more interesting area, the regulation of television content. The media have already commented on that. It would be useful for economic regulation to have its own champion. It is also worth noting that Ofcom will exercise concurrent jurisdiction under the Competition Act with the Office of Fair Trading. The economic panel's role should encompass guidance on how that jurisdiction relates to the sector's specific powers under the Bill. 
 At present, it is unclear how the main Ofcom board will address issues of decency and taste, on the one 
 hand—that will be interesting for the media—and, on the other hand, complex issues such as forward-looking, incremental cost modelling and price setting for the communications networks. The economic panel proposed under the new clause would fulfil a vital function for our beleaguered telecoms sector. Telecoms is a much bigger industry than the television sector. It is a highly capital-intensive business and, to invest, companies need to access global capital markets. The ability to raise capital, and the cost of doing so, is a constraint on the ability of companies to invest. 
 Both the availability and cost of capital are determined by the riskiness of the industry in which a company does business. By international standards, the United Kingdom regulatory environment has been seen historically as a relatively low-risk base for telecoms companies. By taking a consistent, intellectually rigorous approach to economic regulation within the communications sector, the economic panel would deliver much-needed certainty for such businesses. 
 I turn finally to new clause 7, which, again, is about industrial consultation. It is another way to ensure proper consultation with the industry that the regulations will affect. It concerns advice about the consequences of regulation. The Committee will have seen that all the amendments and new clauses are designed with one overriding purpose in mind. Consumers already have their panel—their voice—but industry does not. One has to ask where does the Department of Trade and Industry stand in the argument?

John Robertson: Should there be a place for employees? The hon. Gentleman has talked about consumers and industry, but not about employees.

Andrew Robathan: I am happy to answer that point. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not see the issue in terms of a division between employees and management, but in terms of all those who are involved in industry. I hope that every part of the industry takes account of employees' views, whether of the senior managing director or of the lowliest person in a company who has just joined as a teaboy at 16 or 17. However, I am interested to see old Labour rear its ugly head.
 How is the DTI standing up for this important industrial sector; those creators of wealth? One might ask, ''Where is the DTI Minister?'' I understand that he is in Japan. Well, that is fine; I am sure that he has important business there. However, the DTI should be making its voice heard on the protection of important industrial sectors. 
 The value of broadcasting, and particularly of telecommunications, is immense and growing. That sector has huge economic importance. For example, hon. Members will be aware that the mobile telephone companies produced £22 billion in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's recent auction. We are sure that Ofcom will try to act wisely. One, or all, of the amendments—or even a similar amendment—would 
 give to this vital industrial sector a genuine voice regarding its regulation. Such a provision should be included in the Bill and we expect the Government to recognise that.

Andrew Lansley: The group of amendments covers different aspects of the topic of regulatory burdens. I endorse lead amendment No. 204. I imagine that the Government would argue that the purpose of clause 6(2) is to allow Ofcom to consider the extent to which the objectives and functions of self-regulation are currently being met and to consider where it might withdraw from future regulatory burdens. That would, by implication, leave room for self-regulation to develop. However, that is not accurately represented in the Bill.
 The purpose is to permit the growth of self-regulation as a way to meet Ofcom's objectives. That would be difficult if the alternative to Ofcom fulfilling its functions directly were self-regulation, under which Ofcom would withdraw and leave the way open for that to happen. That would be to miss the purpose of the clause, which, as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East rightly suggested, is intended to promote a range of regulatory mechanisms, including co-regulation—what the Joint Committee called accredited self-regulation—which is the maintenance of a regulatory function in the hands of the industry with backstop powers for Ofcom. Amendment No. 204 would assist with that and amendment No. 4 would also help. 
 I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby does not agree. I received a fax last night from the Advertising Association, which disliked the amendment for the same incorrect reason. That body had not read the amendment carefully enough and did not realise that it would not reimpose self-regulation requirements. In fact, the amendment reflected the desire of those who drafted it to show the desirability of co-regulatory outcomes, for those who are engaged in self-regulation are not necessarily free from the obligations to transparency and accountability. 
 If we could escape from regulation—because self-regulation in the industry is so effective that reporting through Ofcom to the Secretary of State or Parliament is not required—that would be fine, and a genuine self-regulatory outcome. However, we are not looking at that alone. I hope that we are also studying where we can expand the frontiers of self-regulation to include more of the functions that would normally be conducted by the regulator. We hope that Ofcom will do more in this respect than has so far been the case. 
 Broadcast advertising is only one example. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby does not think that we are talking about only a code of broadcast advertising; we are addressing a wide range of functions. In some instances, there may be every reason for there to be transparency and accountability back to the House, or to whatever mechanism is set up in this House. That is precisely what the Joint Committee suggested, in paragraph 71, should be one of the criteria that is reflected. That is reflected directly into clause 6(3). Clause 6 (3) (a) and (b) seem to relate directly to recommendations from 
 the Joint Committee, but that Committee went on to refer to the transparency and accountability of a self-regulatory body, including the requirement to publish a full annual report on its activities so that is available to Parliament. 
 I do not want to be as prescriptive as that about how that transparency or accountability might work, so the structure of amendment No. 4 permits Ofcom to see what opportunities would be appropriate for accountability through Ofcom to the Secretary of State and Parliament. I should be interested to hear from the Minister to what extent the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 presents a difficulty in respect of this line of accountability back to Parliament, and if it does present a difficulty other routes may be available. For example, if Ofcom wishes to do so, there is no reason in principle why it could not seek a regulatory reform order to achieve the same objective. That could then incorporate those mechanisms of accountability that we require. Therefore, I urge Committee members to support amendment No. 4. 
 The Joint Committee looked at other material relating to economic boards, competition boards, economic panels and so forth. It saw no rationale for the creation of an economic or competition board as such. The reason for that is straightforward. The Minister was wrong to suggest that Ofcom is not primarily an economic regulator; it is primarily an economic regulator. If one alienates from the board of Ofcom its function in relation to competition or economic analysis and regulation, I wonder what Ofcom would have left to do. 
 The content board is established because of the experience of having to deal with a range of those issues and the time and the trouble that it consumes.

Andrew Robathan: Does my hon. Friend not think that, in the discussions that will go on in Ofcom about regulatory review, the voice of active and practical industrial experience should be heard? Things rapidly change in this fast moving industry. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that Ofcom is well briefed—that it is forced to be so—about what is happening in industry. There is no reason why it should have to act on such information, but it must know what is happening.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is urging Ofcom to do the thing that Ofcom is free to do anyway; to establish an economic panel. Some of the other new clauses in relation to a competition board or an economic board seem to be alienating from Ofcom's board its primary responsibility. It is perverse to build that into the statutory structure. Ofcom will have to have regard to its impact on industry, but why is the consumer panel in the legislation? That is precisely what that is intended to achieve. If Ofcom feels that that is not sufficient, it has the discretion to add to it under the Office of Communications Act 2002.

Kim Howells: We want Ofcom to be an example of good regulatory practice. Clause 6 is one of the clauses that enshrines that principle. It puts in place a mechanism to ensure that regulatory burdens are
 kept to a minimum, and that that minimum is the one that is necessary to achieve Ofcom's objectives. The mechanism is straightforward and transparent. Subsection (1) requires Ofcom to review its activities in order to ensure that it is not imposing or maintaining unnecessary regulations. Under subsections (4) to (6), it must publish a series of statements setting out how it intends to secure that requirement over successive 12-month periods. Subsection (8) gives Ofcom the flexibility to revise the statement if necessary.
 Amendment No. 128 would require Ofcom to seek the views of industry on which of its functions should be reviewed. I am wary of putting in the Bill a specific reference to industry but not to other groups, including consumers, who are likely to have views. Ofcom needs to be inclusive and receptive to the needs of all of its stakeholders.

Andrew Robathan: I understand what the Minister is saying, but surely the industry needs to be consulted in some way. That may happen anyway; we are trying to make that consultation a requirement in the Bill. There is a consumer panel, so why should not there be a statutory requirement to ensure that industry is consulted? In particular, the DTI—which is, allegedly, a champion of business and is co-sponsor of the Bill—is not, in this instance, championing business at all.

Kim Howells: I cannot speak for the DTI, but having served—as they sometimes term it—three and a half years at that Department, I am not sure that it does anything other than sponsor industry sectors. However, I am thinking hard and am sure that I will come up with something else.
 Amendment No. 128 would require Ofcom to seek the views of industry. I certainly expect that Ofcom will do that. As hon. Members acknowledged, we have strengthened the role of self-regulation when it is not specifically provided for elsewhere in the Bill. The Bill puts in place a framework that will enable Ofcom to use self-regulatory approaches in carrying out its functions. 
 It is important that statutory regulation is not Ofcom's sole option, particularly as self-regulation can be an effective alternative. I more than take the point of amendment No. 204, which would allow Ofcom to consider not only whether self-regulation is already securing or furthering duties, but also whether it may do so still further. The amendment is sensible and would enable Ofcom to look to the future, as well as to the present. However, I am advised by parliamentary counsel that the use of the words ''may be'' to mean that something is likely to happen in the future is not as clear as it might be. There are lots of very wealthy lawyers in the world, and we must be careful about such things. 
 I am happy to accept the amendment in principle and, if the hon. Member for Ryedale withdraws it, I shall return with an appropriate amendment at a later stage.

John Greenway: I am very grateful to the Minister. I said that the matter was a technical one and that the wording might not be entirely accurate. Given how
 such things used to work in Standing Committee, we probably would have sought to change ''may'' to ''shall'' had ''may be'' been in the Bill.

Kim Howells: Yes, I remember those days. I am not sure whether I regret their passing.

John Whittingdale: I am sorry to divert the Minister, but he made an interesting point about the fact that when self-regulation is possible, it is preferable to statutory regulation. There have been one or two rumours to the contrary. A good example of self-regulation is the Press Complaints Commission. Will the Minister make it absolutely clear that there is no question that Ofcom or any other body might seek to replace self-regulation with statutory regulation?

Kim Howells: I am not a man to indulge in rumours.

Peter Atkinson: I think also that that matter is a bit beyond the scope of the amendments.

Kim Howells: Thank you very much, Mr. Atkinson. [Laughter.]

Andrew Robathan: The Minister is off that particular hook.

Kim Howells: Quite.
 Subsection (3) sets out two criteria that Ofcom will need to consider whether the self-regulatory body is sufficiently independent from industry, and whether it is adequately funded. I know that the hon. Member for Ryedale will have no argument with that. Ofcom can, of course, also consider any other criteria. 
 To be able to deliver full account if its activities, Ofcom would need to report on any self-regulatory activities. Accountability of the self-regulatory body is therefore implicit. 
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.